- 1 Episode tally
- 2 Humans
- 3 Linking Non-English Wikipedia
- 4 A barnstar for you!
- 5 archives - date of contributions
- 6 The Big Bang Theory
- 7 A brownie for you!
- 8 edit summary
- 9 Hatting
- 10 A barnstar for you!
- 11 Thank you
- 12 Settling QI Editing Dispute
- 13 Madame Tussauds
- 14 Explaining how to edit my user profile
- 15 A barnstar for you!
- 16 illegal prime
- 17 Christmas 2015
- 18 Happy New Year, Bilorv!
- 19 Happy New Year, Bilorv!
- 20 The Game
- 21 ANI concerning Eaglestorm
- 22 Thank you for supporting my RfA
- 23 Zeliot1
- 24 Category:2015 Tour de France places has been nominated for discussion
Re: change to Human episodes tally, reverted by yourself.  Is there a guide somewhere that states that the "No. of episodes" refers to the number aired, rather than the total number in the series? This seems strange to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox television says for the number of episodes parameter, "The number of episodes released. This parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production." There was a source saying that there would be 8 episodes in the series, but it was written before filming even began. It's okay to say "The series will consist of 8 episodes" in the body of the article (as was done), but this shouldn't be done in the infobox. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I guess then that it should be fine to update Episode counts to at least the number of episodes that a standard TV guide goes up to - e.g. 2 weeks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
You were right the first time: Cast should be listed as per their credit order, not alphabetically. As per Template:Infobox television:
| starring = <!-- Organized by broadcast credit order, with new main cast added to the end of the list -->
- @AlexTheWhovian: yep, that was helpful; I got a bit confused there. Now what order were the cast credited in? :P — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Linking Non-English Wikipedia
Few days ago i saw somewhere that we can link non-English pages in English Wikipedia by adding the two letter language prefix. I just can't remember the code. I want to link this German page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpelstilzchen_(1955) here Rumpelstiltskin (1955 film) --Aero Slicer 11:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Aero Slicer: in this case, it isn't necessary. Look on the left hand side of your screen at Rumpelstiltskin (1955 film); at the bottom, there should be a "Languages" bar with "Deutsch" linked. Click on there and you will be taken to the German Wikipedia's version of the page. These links are controlled through Wikidata: see Q1396933.
- However, to answer your question, the two letter prefix is the same as the two letter code in the URL of the page: it says "de.wikipedia.org", so the code to link to that article would be
[[:de:Rumpelstilzchen (1955)]], which produces de:Rumpelstilzchen (1955). (You could pipe the link to change the text produced if it was necessary.) Help:Interwiki linking shows you how to link to other projects (e.g. Wiktionary), if you're interested, but these links aren't usually used in articles. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Special Barnstar|
|Hello, thank you for your replies to new editors on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. You are doing great work. Thanks again. Human3015Send WikiLove 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)|
archives - date of contributions
Hi Bilorv - thank you for your help with this: archives - date of contributions (Hi there, there are these bots that archive talk pages after 3 months of no activity in a thread. How can I as a user see when contributors posted their comment on a talk page? (This question refers to when they forgot to give a date - especially in Wikipedia's early days, editors did not sign their comments properly or add a timestamp). Thank you Elisanne (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC) - @Elisanne: I think the page history contains the information you're looking for. For instance, I can use the page history of this page to see when your post was made. In theory, all edits should be either (a) signed by the user or (b) signed automatically by a bot, but if neither of these is true then the page history will contain the time of the post. However, if the page you're looking at is an archive, this won't work – for instance, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 366 only shows one edit made by a bot. You'd have to look at the original talk page the archive was from to see when a post was made. If this doesn't answer your question, could you please post a link to the page(s) you're looking at? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)) The problem I have is that ones your archive a talk page, the original talk page disappears or, rather, is filled up with recent discussions. Hence, there is no way for me to access the 'original' talk pages as they first appeared/grew, correct? I'm trying to sort through this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_Union - I guess the only way for me to get the posts onto a timeline is by manually going through each thread and hoping that most of them are timestamped :-) Thank you very much for your explanation and help. Elisanne (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Elisanne: sorry for not responding sooner. It can be a pain to find posts that aren't timestamped, but the page history is not always too hard to look through. For instance, go to this page and use your browser's search function (usually by pressing Ctrl+F) to find the name of the section. (This works because when people press "" on a section of a page, the system will automatically add
/* section name */to the edit summary.) For instance, I can quickly see that "Humanitarian aid vs Development aid" was created in this edit and the most recent edit to it was this. This still requires some manual work, but isn't usually too much of a hassle. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the awards section has been moved off the main page to List of awards and nominations received by The Big Bang Theory. There has been a bit of an edit war as this sectioning gets worked out among editors who watchlist the page. Liz Read! Talk! 17:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Liz: thank you for the explanation. I probably shouldn't have interfered, as I was too confused to understand what was happening. I did look at List of awards and nominations received by The Big Bang Theory but only glanced at the page history to see that it was created in March; it was also a page I had watchlisted, which wouldn't make any sense if it had been created while I was away. Of course, it was created in March but quickly redirected and only turned into a proper article recently. But that's tangential anyway. I had simply assumed that General Ization was self-reverting by accident, since their edit summary seemed to be addressing someone else and didn't say "self-revert" or "undoing after further consideration" or anything else I would personally have written when undoing myself on purpose. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is perfectly normal to immediately think of reverting edits that remove large sections on an article, especially an article that is closely watched. That was my impulse when I saw it happening a few days ago. It was only when I compared the information being removed with the award page and saw it was identical did I understand what was going on. And, you're right, it's another lesson about the importance of accurate edit summaries! Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
|Hi Bilorv. Thanks for the extremely informative reply you left me at the Teahouse, and for being so thoughtful as to explain how to include code without it displaying. I went there to learn one new thing and ended up learning two new things. Well chuffed!! Please accept this brownie as a small token of my appreciation. Have a good day. tH0r (talk contribs) 13:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)|
- @CV9933: thanks for pointing that out. I contacted an oversighter and the edit summary appears to have been RevDel'd. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Cassianto: I've replied here. I think I've fixed the problem but my intention was certainly not to try to discourage discussion. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Brilliant Idea Barnstar|
|Hatting long RfA comments. Small changes like this are important - they are the precursor to bigger ones. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)|
... for adding those 4 additional links to the Seedfeeder AfD discussion. I added three of the four to the article's EL section (I am not sure if the fourth is reliable or not), so hopefully these will help establish notability for the doubters. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Settling QI Editing Dispute
|Thank you for stepping in to sort out this [[dispute. I entirely take the blame for letting this happen, and hope you can resolve it. GUtt01 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)|
in my opinion the change I made was very very important because people should know that going to madame tussauds is a once in a life time opportunity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Explaining how to edit my user profile
- Actually you didn't, you added speedy tag to your talk page. Talk pages are not deleted. I've fixed all that for you. Thanks Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Invisible Barnstar|
|The judges would like to congratulate you for making the 2nd round being in the top 16! Although you didn't make the top 9 of Round 2, we appreciate that you participated in the 2nd Annual GA Cup. We hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)|
I've restored the article illegal prime as it was a former featured article that someone turned into a redirect. Accordingly, I've also restored the link to that article that appeared in illegal number that you (correctly) removed recently. Just thought I'd explain this since you will likely get a note saying that something you did was reversed. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 02:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing that – I should have noticed it myself, really. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Bilorv!
Happy New Year, Bilorv!
The Game (mind game), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
ANI concerning Eaglestorm
Thank you for supporting my RfA
|Brianhe RfA Appreciation award|
|Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)|
Here this is for that edit in wozard101 about payement model movement p.s. that was me who put it there in the beginning i did not want to be blamed if it was wrong to do that so heres a brownie
minidragon 20:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Category:2015 Tour de France places has been nominated for discussion
Category:2015 Tour de France places, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)